tv [untitled] December 7, 2011 10:30am-11:00am PST
sacramento. >> they specifically go to sacramento and san quentin. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. >> i just want to add, the goal of the adult probation department is to have -- once the deputy probation officers are brought on it early next year, we will have more capacity to do more transportation. but now, we are part rising high as the individuals for the transportation. we have deputy probation officers right now driving the weekends, 6:00 a.m., at all hours and days, but we try to do is target of transportation to the people that have very low functioning levels and who might not even safely make it back to san francisco. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chu: we do have a
budget analyst report for this item. >> the 1-year reentry but it has a budget of $1.4 million, and that includes the u.s. department of justice fund. an additional 700 $708,000 in other matching funds. the budget details as well as the funding sources are shown in the table, table 1, on page 4 of our report. i would note, because the new 1823 senior administrative analyst position is coded as a grant-funded position, the position will terminate at the expiration of the grants. we recommend you approve this proposal ordinance. supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public
that would like to comment on this item? >> jane, and jane, jane i found our budget time to job training train, train, train time to do some job training first of all we need some money change new 9 chain, a chain, and chang, i found the budget i am just the money linking chain we need some money change change and we need some job change training. supervisor chu: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi: motion to
set with recommendations. supervisor chu: we can do that without objection. thank you. item 3. >> item 3. resolution authorizing the department of emergency management to retroactively accept and expend a fy2009 buffer zone protection program grant in the amount of $199,820 from the u.s. department of homeland security, through the california emergency management agency, to fund critical infrastructure protection needs. supervisor chu: thank you. >> amie alden. the bread before you today as the buffer zone protection program. this is a grant from the u.s. department of homeland security that is designed to protect critical infrastructure. the grants go from the fed's to our state, cal ema, to local law enforcement to enhance security around critical infrastructure. examples include power plants, dams, stadiums, financial
institutions. part of homeland security works with law-enforcement to identify the site that may have some risks associated with it and to identify specific threats and vulnerability. they grant money to the local un force the agency to enhance planning, equipment, and training in the to mitigate the risk to the side. for this grant, the department of homeland security is given approximately $200,000 off to the san francisco police department for equipment. specifically, equipment used by the bomb squad and four interoperable radio equipment. department of medicine management is a fiscal agent for this grant, which is why i am here. there is no local match to this funding. free money for the city and county of san francisco. the opposition's funded and no grant funds have yet been encumber or expanded. happy to answer any questions you have. >> supervisor chu: we do not have a general fund impact, so there is no budget analyst report. if there are no questions, let's open up to public comment.
is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> good morning, supervisors. my name is douglas yep. i have lived in san the scope for 59 years. i would like to speak in support of the resolution. by, among others, especially on the east coast feel that san francisco has not gone recognized as an active target for overseas terrorists. i know that terrorism is the lifeline of san francisco. i think we have to be realistic and recognize the fact that san francisco is among one of the top targets for overseas terrorists, even the most of the people here in san francisco lead to downplay that. this item is something that is overdue, and i have to admit,
homeland security does a good job, even the recently they did have that item that was publicized nationally, warning us about exploding turkey during thanksgiving. i thought that was kind of a reach for homeland security. i guess that is part of their job. this resolution goes to something that is pretty basic, which is government's responsibility to protect its residents. 200,000 is more than nothing. san francisco needs to be on its toes to recognize, that even though we are a city of tolerance, one thing that we will not tolerate is terrorists trying to hurt our residents. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. calis, can we send item forward with recommendations?
without objection. item for. >> -- four. >> item 4. resolution fixing prevailing wage rates for: 1) workers performing work under city contracts for public work and improvement; 2) workers performing work under city contracts for janitorial services; 3) workers performing work in public off-street parking lots, garages, or storage facilities for automobiles on property owned or leased by the city; 4) workers engaged in theatrical or technical services for shows on property owned by the city; 5) workers engaged in the hauling of solid waste generated by the city in the course of city operations, pursuant to a contract with the city; and 6) workers performing moving services under city contracts at facilities owned or leased by the city. supervisor chu: thank you. this is an item that come before us every year to set the prevailing wage rates. do we have a representative from the department's to present on this item?
>> good morning, supervisors. rich david. here to answer any questions you have. this is the animal prevailing wage that we file every year. supervisor chu: could you explain generally the process you go through, what this looks like? for many of us, we have seen this item time and again, but just for the general public will reset the prevailing wage rate might be useful. >> the process as we survey get information from the state, as well as some of the larger unions that represent the people functioning in these capacities and get their current rates that we would use to set for the city in any contract we contract with outside agencies,
third-party, that sets the prevailing base line for which we would contract out the work. supervisor chu: the prevailing wage that the city has passed indicates the city would be paying prevailing wages for certain trades or jobs that we actually contract out for. your job has been to survey a number of different employers to see what the prevailing market rate has been generally? >> correct. >> supervisor chu: every year, you come forward with a set of recommendations to increases or decreases in those wages. thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> members of the committee, on page 3 of our report, we point out increases in the prevailing wage rate could result in increased costs on future city contracts. however, and increased cost to the city as a result of the increased wages are dependent on future city contractor bids and
the extent to which financial -- increase prevailing wage rates would result in higher bids. we cannot estimate the potential increased costs at this time, as we always did for this item. we consider a proposal to be a matter of the board of supervisors. >supervisor chu: if there are no questions from the committee, let's open this up to the public. i have two cards. >> jeff pillar. i think our card or identified. we are here for item five. supervisor chu: any members of the other that would like to speak on item 4? >> walter paulson. you know we need money we have the budget blues piano we need it
we have read in the news i am falling even more in debt with you hanging on a budget moment here with you we have so much money there to lose hanging on a budget moment here with you i know you pay your dues and you need more money here, it is true did you ever go to the dentist and try to fix your tooth i am hanging on a budget moment here with you will need more money and i got the budget blues i hope you hear it now we need more money in the future and that is the way it goes supervisor chu: thank you. any other members of the public that wish to speak on item 4? seeing none, public comment is closed.
colleagues, can send item forward? we have a motion with recommendation, 2nd. without objection. we will be calling item 5 next. so the public knows, after that, given time, we will likely call item 9 and 10 after that. >> item 5. ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code sections 21c.2 though 21c.6, and adding section 21c.7 to: 1) specify the city contracts for services that are subject to the city's prevailing rate of wage requirement ("covered contracts"); 2) consolidate consistent standards for determining and enforcing prevailing rate of wage requirements in all covered contracts; 3) provide an employment transition period for workers under successor contracts to all covered contracts; and 4) provide that all work on covered contracts be performed by employees and not independent contractors; and amending the san francisco police code section 3300c.1 to make conforming changes. supervisor chu: thank you.
we have been joined by supervisor wiener, the sponsor of this legislation. would you like to say some opening comments? supervisor wiener: thank you. this is legislation to improve and upgrade our prevailing wage ordinance. we have a problem with the ordinance in san francisco to ensure that in a number of different areas, when the city contracts for services, that our contractors are paying a prevailing wage to their employees. in an era when we have a constant race to the bottom, it seems, when it comes to labor and a lot of different areas, this is part of san francisco's effort to ensure workers are paid a fair wage and the city is not to dissipating in that race to the bottom the areas of labour that are covered by the prevailing wage ordinance include janitorial, motor bus services, off street parking,
theatrical workers, hauling of solid waste, and moving services. this legislation does a few things. first, it does some cleanup and consolidation because the prevailing wage ordinance has evolved over time and there is some reorganization for consistency that needs to occur. it broadens the kind of contracts covered by the ordinance. it also makes the change to the transition employment period, extending that to six months. we saw earlier this year at one south van ness, when there was a change in janitorial service, tenders were let go without sufficient transition. it also clarifies and closes a loophole, in terms of using independent contractors who are actually employees in reality, to avoid a prevailing wage
requirement. i will invite ms. levitt from to speak about -- from olse to speak about it. we have several amendments that are small and we have been advised that they are substantive and would require a continuance. at the end of this, i will ask that this is continue to next meeting, january 4. in addition, the city purchaser has indicated she has several amendments, which i believe will be non-controversial, but unfortunately right now, i have not received those amendments. i was hoping to make those amendments by the city purchaser today. if i do not receive them today, we will consider them when we receive them and that could require a for the continued from a january 4 until january 11. i would prefer to avoid that, so hopefully, we will have those
amendments today. i also want to go to a couple of things. first, i know some representatives local labor 261 are here today. we are continuing to work with laborers around landscaping, prevailing wage issues, that may be handled in trailing legislation. we also have, in the last few days, have been contacted by some folks in the disability community including nonprofits who work disabled people in terms of developing employment skills, as well as to the department to have some questions. between now and the next budget committee hearing, my office will continue to meet with and work with both labor, as well the disability community, the impact on city departments, just to make sure that we can all be on the same page to the extent
possible and work to find common ground. i would ask during public comment today, if people have concerns about the legislation, if possible, that they propose concrete changes, so that we can start the brainstorming process around that. with that said, i will invite ms. levitt up from the office of labor standards enforcement to address the committee. i'm sorry. i should say what the amendments are that i have. one is on page two, line 16, to remove the phrase "property contracts." page two, line 17, to remove the word "subcontracts." and then on page 34, line 18, after the word "hire" to add the phrase "once worked for hours
worked for the employer." with that, ms. levitt. >> good morning, supervisors. excuse me. i do not have my normal voice today. supervisor wiener did a good overview of the most significant changes that are before you today. in general, the amendment takes what was six different ordinances, combined them into one, with consistent prevailing wage worker retention and enforce the provisions. most significant to the office of labor standards enforcement are the following -- one is the requirement that work has to be performed by employees, rather than independent contractors. supervisor mirkarimi: you might
want to put the microphone to you. >> i thought i would highlight the provision most committed to the office of labor standards enforcement. one is the provision that requires work on city contracts be performed by individual employees, rather than people classified as independent contractors. this is significant for the prevailing wage provisions for the hauling of sludge. our office had done two audits now to determine if workers were paid the correct prevailing wage who were driving trucks on that contract. because of the definition of employee in the current prevailing wage ordinance, the majority of the workers of the current contract are excluded because it says managerial
employees are excluded. what has happened is the current contractor has been able to pay independent contractors at a significantly less rate of pay without benefits than was envisioned when we passed the prevailing wage for the region ordinance for the hauling of sludge. another change, as you heard in item 4 on the agenda, the annual passage of the prevailing wage rates, the city adopts the state prevailing wage rates for public works, but the city goes a step further and has its own requirements for different city services when performed on city property. so it is those services that are being considered in this current amendment. what has happened to date is every year, the civil service
commission recommends to the board the adoption of the appropriate collective bargaining agreement, which lays out the prevailing wage and benefit rates. with this amendment, the sole service commission will actually laid out, instead of adopting the collective bargaining agreement, which is sometimes very complicated and hard to figure out what rates need to be paid. now every year, bidders, workers, our office, the purchasing department will have before them the actual wage rates and fringe benefit rates for each craft and classification of work. that would be a big help in consistent enforcement and workers understanding what their rights are under the ordinance.
other than that, i think supervisor weener's synopsis hit the high point. if there are any questions, happy to answer. supervisor chu: just a few questions. part of it was articulated. one was the three months policy that would be changing. the second component you talked about was the employee versus the independent contractor component. then there were other pieces that were part of it, the exemption of the small business to nonprofits? >> that is for the janitorial contracts only. as was mentioned, and i think this group out of -- grew out of -- seiu members are here today. the city purchased one south bend ness. janitorial contract went out to bid. it turned out the low bidder
was small enough so that they were exempt from both the prevailing wage provisions in the current ordinance and the worker retention provisions in the current ordinance. so we amendments before you seek to address that and make it so that all contractors will be bidding on a level playing field. supervisor chu: i try to understand this. i am glad we will have a continuance so i have a chance to better understand some of the issues that may have gone into the drafting of the legislation. i am wanting to understand what this means for our city departments, not contractors, city businesses. with regard to work for individual employees versus independent contractors, on that component, to receive other examples aside from the sludge contractor where that is the case? >> no. we could, but we have not. supervisor chu: that is a unique
situation we have seen in the city? >> correct. supervisor chu: with regard to the three-month, six-month detention policy, what was the reason? >> that is a question better addressed by supervisor wiener. is my understanding it would provide greater drops a dirty for folks who were being displaced. that was the intent. supervisor wiener: the current is 3 months. there had been discussions, a desire by some to extend to one year. we went with six months as something that was a reasonable increase. one year was probably too long. there is nothing magic about the six months. it was simply a result of an number of conversations. supervisor chu: ok.
anything else you would add, other presentation you would bring up? supervisor wiener: that is it. thank you, ms. levitt. unless there are further comments from colleagues, we can open up for public comment. i have five speaker cards. if you would like to speak to this item and have not filled out a card, they are appear. -- up here. tim paulson, labor counsel. jeff tiller. olga miranda. patrick regan. steve craviel. >> supervisors, jeff pillar. i am here on behalf of employees employed in the waste hauling, parking industry, theatrical industry, janitorial industry.
as supervisor wiener said, attempting to address some significant holes that are in the existing ordinances that have been around since at least 1999. as you have heard, one of the primary changes is the change to make what has now been a prevailing wage ordinance which the city has attempted, city departments have struggled to apply to situations involving non-employees, independent contractors, to require anyone bidding on any of these contracts to have a employer- employee relationship. the reason for that, one cannot apply a prevailing wage ordinance to people who do not earn wages. it is not an apples to apples comparison, by any means. what was noted to earlier by mr. levin was the sludge contract came up last year, the before. frankly, that is a good example -- not the only example, but an example of the problems that exist in this field, where you
have a situation where employees will be paid what appears to a layperson as a large amount of money per hour, but the bulk of that money goes to the maidens of their own trucks, insurance, all the other provisions would be required. the department of labor relations simply said, look, we cannot apply a prevailing wage ordinance to that type of arrangement. not only have we taken that position, but the state of california's department of industrial nations has taken the same positions. you cannot apply in these circumstances to a non-employee. there is also a change in the definition of contract, which had been noted, and that applies only to janitors -- if i could continue for a moment. only two janitors and to the waste haulage provisions. the janitors provisions, as have been noted, exception for small
businesses and nonprofits has been removed. the reason for that has to do with, again, creating a level playing field, circumstances where bids -- supervisor chu: if i could ask you to conclude. >> contracts have gone out to bidders. the other change and want to know for the record, if there is a change in the city's existing arrangement for purposes of the garbage franchise, that would also be subject to this ordinance. supervisor chu: before we continue on, i would ask folks to respect the time period did we know that this i will be continued. i know that there will be other opportunities and i want to get the other agenda items in time. supervisor wiener: before we proceed, there are two represented this from the department of public health and human services agency that i would like to bring up. they are not the public comment. okubo from dph.
phil arnold. if you could come up to address the committee on behalf of your departments. >> phil arnold, a deputy director for finance and administration for the human services agency. we have some issues -- five issues -- with the custodial section of this revised ordinance. the first issue we have is the deletion of the section that applies to contractors to provide training to disabled persons. we have a contract with the arc of san francisco, which does provide some custodial and recycling services to our agency. it employs approximately five developmentally-disabled persons. we pay the contractor a flat rate. i do not think -- i do not know -- but i do not think a flat rate is the prevailing wage. it